Breaking the Chain

Once upon a time, before blogs ruled the earth, somebody invented the Liebster Award. It was probably a German, because “liebster” is German for “beloved” or “favorite”.

The idea is that you nominate a blog for the award if you think it deserves more readers. In this latest round of nominations, the cutoff for getting the award is having fewer than 200 followers. This humble blog currently has 181 followers, so it qualifies with respect to the numbers. Whether WOCS deserves to have more readers is a more difficult question (it’s possible it should have fewer).

Anyway, a fellow blogger nominated WOCS for the Liebster today, after being nominated himself. So, to accept the award, I’m supposed to answer 10 questions sent to me by the other blogger, and also nominate other supposedly underappreciated blogs.

However, although I’m pleased to have been nominated – as anyone would be – I’ve decided not to “accept” the award by fulfilling the requirements above. Instead, I’m merely going to mention some blogs I follow and which you might enjoy too (one of which has many more than 200 followers).

Fortunately, the nomination doesn’t come with a threat, unlike a standard chain letter. If I’d been told that failure to continue this process would result in some catastrophe or other (locusts? none of my favorite cereal at A&P?), I definitely would have complied. You can’t be too careful about these things (well, actually, you can).

Now for those blogs I recommend:

First, there is SelfAwarePatterns. The author of this very interesting blog writes about science and philosophy, among other things, and gets a lot of intelligent comments. Also, I agree with him more often than not (he’s obviously a very bright guy).

Another philosophical blog I recommend is ausomeawestin. The author argues vigorously for moral realism, the idea that judgments like “Susan is a good person” or “Sam did the right thing” are true or false just as much as statements like “Copper conducts electricity”. In other words, we can have knowledge about ethics. I tend to disagree, but I’m not sure why, and I’ve greatly enjoyed discussing the issue with ausomeawestin’s proprietor.

Lastly, on a very different note, there is Beguiling Hollywood, operated by Vickie Lester (presumably a pseudonym, since “Vicki Lester” is the character played by Janet Gaynor and Judy Garland in their respective versions of A Star Is Born). Ms. Lester mostly writes about old Hollywood and also has a wonderful supply of related photographs, which she shares on a daily basis, like this one of Frederic March and Janet Gaynor from that famous old movie:

fredric-march-janet-gaynor-a-star-is-born

Ok, my part of the chain is now broken, but do consider taking a look at these deserving blogs. They’re fun and educational too!

6 thoughts on “Breaking the Chain

    • You’re welcome, Vickie, and please keep up the great work at your blog. You often make me nostalgic for Southern California, especially the Westside, where the air always seems to be nicer!

  1. Thanks for recommending me; I’m quite flattered by the honor of being recommended by a student of philosophy who disagrees with me — ’tis a rare occurrence indeed! I look forward to continuing the interesting conversations we’ve been having, your recent comments on my blog have been challenging.

    I like your description of my blog, by the way, but on what might be a curious note, I must admit that I am hesitant to say that people can be morally good. I tend to think that there is a priority of the right over the good (I’ve always favored deontology, moving from monistic Kantianism to the pluralism of Ross), and as only actions can be morally right, it makes little sense to say that people can be morally good. I think we can say it, and people will know what we mean — that this person frequently does the morally right thing — but when we say it we are not referring to the property of being morally good, as persons cannot have this property as they cannot have the property of being morally right. Anyways, just wanted to note that, as I haven’t made that clear in any of my entries and haven’t had the chance to bring it up elsewhere — in other words, thanks for the opportunity to share my ideas, in this comment, and with your readers through your recommendation.

    • You’re very welcome and thanks for correcting me. I confess that I’ve never thought much about whether a person can have moral qualities. I read Ross many years ago (in fact, I just took my dusty 1965 hardcover copy of “The Right and the Good” off the shelf), but don’t remember what he or anyone else said about right or good actions vs. good people. This reminds me, however, of a point made by Philippa Foot (I think) regarding something we’ve recently discussed: we should keep in mind concepts like courage and honesty when talking about the existence of a fact/value distinction. But, as you say, a courageous or honest person can presumably be understood as one who tends to act courageously or speak honestly.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s